Posted on 01/09/2007 1:00:08 PM PST by jazusamo
First Lt. Ehren Watada of the Stryker Brigade, U.S. Army, Fort Lewis, refused to obey orders to deploy to Iraq, becoming the first commissioned officer to do so. He says he opposes the war not all wars, but this one. So do we, but we cannot support his request to be excused from a posting to Iraq.
Soldiers have to go where they are ordered. That is the rule here and everywhere, and for reasons of military necessity. Watada was a volunteer, and knew that when he signed up. He knew about the Iraq war, as well: He signed up in 2003, the year of the U.S. invasion. He also should have known that once one joins the military, one loses the freedom to speak in ways that could damage soldiers' morale a restriction that includes political criticism of the military's mission. We have seen this apply to generals, which is why their criticism of the war has come from retirees. The rule also applies to lieutenants.
Watada will soon face a general court-martial in front of a military judge and jury. The judge is now deciding whether to include four charges of "conduct unbecoming an officer," which rise out of Watada's political statements, or to try him only on the charge of refusing to go to Iraq. The possible sentence for refusing to deploy is two years; for the political statements, another four years.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...
WA Ping...JFK
Exactly, He volunteered, He was not drafted. He has no excuse for what he is doing now.
Ya...and even though the uniform was a PROP for him...it didn't even make him look like a hottie.
Can't do an article 15(non judicial punishment) and conduct a court martial on the same charges.
He should be tried, convicted, demoted to E-1 then stood against a wall.
HeHeHe! :-)
I want to live in your country.
Not even with that fancy jacket in post #7. :)
An Officer and a Gentlewoman.
Watada does have a reason, or rationalization. I believe it goes like this:
(a) As a soldier, he swore to uphold the Constitution.
(b) The US signed the UN Charter, which has equal weight to the Constitution, as do all treaties, according to the Constitution.
(c) The UN Charter prohibits nations from invading other nations unless (1) The Security Council authorizes the invasion or (2) the invading nation acts in self defense.
(d) The invasion of Iraq failed the UN test in (c), and thus violated the UN Charter.
(e) A violation of the UN Charter violates the US Constitution, as per (b).
(f) Watada had to refuse to participate in violating the Constitution, as per (a).
Did anyone order a cup of Koffi?
uh, wouldn't you?
Good point, there are very few and he's the only officer I believe.
This smells of a set up anyway. His dad refused service during Vietnam and went in the Peace Corps. He's been an antiwar activist for some time.
His mom has gotten involved with Code Pink but I don't know if she had any dealings with them before he refused the assignment.
It almost looks like he accepted his commission with an agenda in mind.
I was speaking of the Specialist from New Jersey...he did, indeed, enlist 3 1/2 years ago (per the article in my post).
But thank you for the attempt at correction. It's good to have a system of checks and balances! ;-)
LOL!!!
The oath is as follows:
"I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States{{, the governor of the state of _______ (for National Guard enlistees)}} and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_enlistment
Watada swore to "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution, which requires him by extension (he says) to not violate the UN Charter, since the US Constitution gives equal weight to treaties as it does to itself.
I don't know if he would accept the US Supreme Court as final arbiter of Constitutional conflicts.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0109-01.htm
I see a problem with this approach, if affirmed by the SC: soldiers framing convenient interpretations of the Constitution have an easy out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.